Video: Canon explains how its new RF lens mount is better than smaller, older mounts

Canon Imaging Plaza, an official Canon YouTube channel dedicated to showing off the latest Canon technologies and cameras, has shared a video highlighting the benefits of its new full-frame RF lens mount and the advantages it has over older lens mounts, such as its own EF mount.

The four-and-a-half-minute video uses CGI renderings and example images to show off the various benefits Canon's RF mount offers and the technology that goes into its RF lenses.

A rendering comparison from the video showing how the light can be better controlled through elements when the elements are able to be placed close to the imaging sensor.

The narrator addresses the shorter back focus distance and larger diameter mount, which allows Canon to move the rear-most elements in lenses closer to the sensor, which it says helps to minimize chromatic aberration and allows engineers to get more creative with lens designs. Having the rear-most lens elements close to the sensor creates its own problems though, which leads the video to Canon's SubWavelength Structure Coating (SWC) and Air Sphere Coating (ASC) technologies, which are designed to minimize ghosting and flaring in images.

A comparison shot from the video that shows how the shorter back focus distance and larger diameter mount can yield better image quality—especially near the edges of the frame—thanks to better aberration control.

The video also mentions the additional contacts found in the RF lens mount, which are designed to increase the bandwidth of data and power that flows to and from the lens through the camera.

While this video is clearly about Canon's RF mount, the pros (and cons) of larger-diameter lens mounts and shorter back focus distances also apply to Nikon's new Z mount, which is both larger in diameter (55mm to the RF's 54mm) and features a closer flange focal distance (16mm to the RF's 20mm).

Comments

I think that, the forth-third sensor go ahead, when they used large diameter element in the back of the lens to have "parallel light spray" to the sensor, so that it has less color aberration...The weak is only "small sensor".And now Canon show the advantage from that...

Thank you. Maybe not 1.5x but definitely 1.15-1.2x is the real speed. LOLFirst I thought the video was over 43 sec into it, then the failed attempt at gravitas by slowing the playback down?!? Looks like even marketing budget is being cut at Cannon.

Dear DPRHow can I ensure that my posts are worthy enough to be included in this 'Comments' section?Sadly I'm one of those people that only seem to be able to come up with sarcastic, barbed comments about four days after they would be effective, so I'm afraid that suggestion wouldn't work for me.And although I admit I'm quite shallow I can't bring myself to hang the whole meaning of my miserable existence on a Japanese camera brand, so please don't suggest that either.Perhaps I should retreat to my den, eat tacos until my eyes bulge and hope pithy inspiration will eventually come to me? What do you think?

Maybe you could add to the conversation instead of worrying about self-ranking. Some days DPReview will put out news and news and news, and try as you might with your comments, if it's not useful, nobody will up-vote them. Instead of fretting about this, you should go out and take pictures, do your thing, and live life.

I'm wondering... How it can be that people were able to make cameras, to make lenses, coatings, microscopes… For about 150 years. But they have never, ever realized that the most important parameter is to have large diameter of the mount and short flange distance? However, now they are much smarter and yet, all of them come to the different conclusion about the optimal parameters. It’s a bit strange to me

Of course all optical engineers knew about the advantages of short flange length and large diameter.But these were impossible for SLR cameras which both market leads, Canon and Nikon, chose to negate for more than a decade.

Other technologies have been changing too, and competition has forced the market to advance. 50MP resolution out of a 35mm film and ISO 1600 would be crazy 20 years ago. It's now something you get on your phone with a tiny digital sensor. 10 years ago, 2MP TVs were expensive. Now 8MP and soon 32MP TVs will be commonplace.

I'm sure others are wondering too. I mean everyone knows that one day a Death Star will be built in space so how could we have not known this?Personally I think all current lens technology is a selfish plot conceived by scientists to distract us from the fact that they are really working on optics using 'Light Sabre' technology with 'Hyperdrive' motors. Fortunately most of us tend to cease to worry about such things once we become sexually active.

All engineering is about compromises. Versus either a rangefinder of twin-lens reflex, the SLR design was a huge improvement in the photographer's ability to see precisely what the camera would capture. But it required a bulky and vibration-inducing mirror, as well as a heavy & large pentaprism on top.

Together, they made it impossible to achieve the shorter rear distance you want.

There *IS* another alternative: the ground glass that replaced the film pack in old large-format cameras. Of course, they were slow, not very bright, cumbersome and displayed the image upside-down.

You should note also that the last two tweaks—the TLA ones that offset short rear-length flaws— seem to be design improvements that would not have been possible in a consumer product even a decade ago.

Canon already has a camera that "kills" the a7iii for general shooting: The 5D Mark III. Check the pictures on any stock photo site or do a tally of cameras pros are using. you will see almost no one using a a7iii.

No argue here, no matter what I hate the sony files that everyone else is raving about. Dynamic range yes but the end result looks FLAT to me. My second shooter shoots with the A7mk3, and I do not like the files. I much rather have my 5dmk4 colors and quality.

EOS R already has better specs in some areas than A7III:- More pixels (25% more)- Way better EVF (both resolution and optics)- Way better LCD (resolution and excellent touch screen)- Way better ergonomy (I mean, way better)- Way better AF-S (EOS R can see in dark)- Way more AF points (9-10 times more, I think)

A7III also has advantages like IBIS, Dr at ISO 100, two memory card slots, FF 4K option and more battery life so no camera kills the other, and they don't need to.

just someone: And so does Sony....colourgeek: When you look at DXO you will see that the RF lenses aren't that great, compared to the competition. Look at the much praised 50mm F1.2 lens. Tested it's transmission is only F0.1 better then the Sony 50mm F1.4, it is less sharp, it has more distortion and only less Chromatic aberration they are very close in vignetting.And when you can accept a lens with F0.3 less transission you can have the very simple and only $200 cheap Sony 50mm F1.8 lens, that is sharper, has less distortion, has less vignetting and almost the same CA....The canon lens is heavy, complicated, is not better then the competition and it is a lot more expensive... Yes the lens is great, but not as great as the competition, maybe this is why Canon gets behind when it comes to FF camera sales...

They are not lagging in camera bodies. Look at the majority of picture credits from stock photos, photo publications and photo contests. A majority will be Canon equipment. You will see almost not Sony gear.

MyReality sorry pathetic video at 4K, dynamic range lacking and lagging behind other sensors for years. I still shoot Canon and just hope they can get something out that would keep up with the lenses. They said finally they will have IBIS. AT least there is one major catch up item.

MyReality: Maybe in your reality they aren't but in the real world out there they are.... They are lagging behind in camera sales, they are lagging behind in technology...Yes there are more Canon cameras out in the world then there are Sony cameras, but slowly that will change when Canon does nothing to make sales better...

No it is not, Canon had to make a mirrorless camera, as they saw that their FF camera sales were loosing to Sony FF mirrorless cameras. They had to come with something Sony could not do, so they came with the larger mount. After creating the larger mount they had to give a good reason why a mount should be larger then the E-mount, so the story was born. Thanks to Fuji Sony is even looking worse then they really are....

Large mount is merely a move to segregate the canon and nikon systems in an age where everyone likes to mix and match. All that and they still do lose sales to FF sony by at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, problem unsolved.

Because Canon wants to show how good their lens mount is. They want to show that they can sell a lens that should cost say $1200 for $2100 and that they can make everybody believe that this is the lens everybody wants to have... (not buy, as smart people buy the A7III and the 50mm F1.8 lens and have a comparable good lens (better in sharpness, vignetting, distortion and equal in CA, only less in transmission, but only by T0.3) and a camera for about the same price as the Canon lens alone....

In it, you will see clear proof Sony designed the e-mount for full-frame and that it too benefits from a short back focal distance. I'm curious as to why petapixel published this on their site too though given their critical article written by sator.

I don't like to bash brands like a 6th grader but, the new f4/600mm GM has an MTF chart which practically consists of straight, horizontal lines even with that puny FE mount. Just by existence, that lens makes this video moot.

blackcoffee17: You are right, but looking at the 50mm Sony F1.4 lens and the RF 50 F1.2 lens I can't see any reason to believe that the Canon lens is better, the Sony lens has less distortion, is sharper, has only T0.1 less transmission and just some more CA and vignetting (both easily covered in post...) And the Sony lens is less complicated. So the benefit of the large mount is not really very interesting, is it?

Bad logic for three reasons: Taking one example and generalizing, using a MTF chart to characterize all lens characteristics, comparing a current lens against a lens that does not exist.I will give you partial credit, your bashing a brand like an eight grader.

@MyReality. Thanks, I normally don't bash brands & if I do, it's for sarcastic reasons. However, I was short on time, and this 1000 character space doesn't allows much larger comments but, I'd like to get the remaining marks.

When I look to the DXOMark lens database, I can only compare Canon 1.2/50RF & Sony 1.4/50mm ZA. The sharpness field map looks much more homogenous for RF and kudos to Canon for that, however it has too much light loss for a 1.2 lens (it's f1.2/T1.5, Sony is f1.4/T1.6). It's distortion is higher, nearly vignettes as Sony and it's $800 is more expensive than Sony 50mm 1.4ZA.

Sony is a much older design, but its resolving power carries it to the front page of lens scoreboard, which is dominated by Sony, Sigma and Zeiss, with some Nikon glass.

Even Sony's budget f1.8/85mm lens has a place alongside its G and GM siblings with T1.8 and with wonderful sharpness.

So Canon should stop bashing other brands and create excellent photographic equipments as they did before

"it has too much light loss for a 1.2 lens(it's f1.2/T1.5, Sony is f1.4/T1.6)".? Comparisons are only valid at the same aperture. More light loss relative to what?Attributes such as distortion, vignetting and CA are becoming almost irrelevant today in practical usage due to both in and out of camera corrections. Sharpness in usage is subjective.I realize that we can talk all day about lens bench test comparisons, but to what end? It is mostly an amateur thing.Sony makes some very good lenses just like Fuji, but the "quality of the pudding is in the tasting". Time will tell if lens quality extends over to body and lens usage. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics is coming.I did not realize that Canon was bashing anyone. Canon seems to be the "black sheep" of the photo industry and gets the most bashing on this forum..

And because the Canon lenses has to be more complicated and larger then the Sony lenses because their mount is bigger... Oh wait their lenses should be less complicated, maybe someone should tell the Canon engineers.... I think Canon knows they will not sell to many of these stupidly expensive lenses, so they have to make them even more expensive.Most fun part is that when you look at DXO the Sony 50mm F1.8 lens, that costs only $200,-- is very close to the Canon $2100 lens. The Sony lens is sharper, hes less distortion, has better vignetting and close to the same CA. So when you can go with 0.3 less transmission then you can buy a 50mm lens and a A7III for baout the same price as the Canon 50mm lens... Very educational when you think that this is a very simple lens on a small mount....

Well third party vendors like Sigma and Tamron will produce lenses that uses the Canon RF flange distance and the Sony E mount diameter, so they can use the same design for all of the mirrorless mounts, they just add some built in adapters to it. So this only matters for Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica lenses.

Btw. Sony already said the theoretical maximum is f0.68 for the E mount, so that should be good enough.

@Thoughts R UsThere might be good reasons for not making F1.2 lenses, or at least not making of it a priority. The New Canon 50/1.2 RF has been well regarded but the technical numbers are not earth shattering:https://www.dxomark.com/canon-rf-50mm-f-1-2l-usm-review/while its price and size are. I will take the Zeiss 55/1.8 any time over this monster for size, price, and timid 1/3 T stop advantage.

That RF 50 lens is a masterpiece and pro's are already using it. Who cares about technical numbers? That's all I get from pro-Sony people: spec sheets numbers. That proves that Sony has no real advantage in the field.

Pro's never talk in spec sheets; that's a losing proposition and all apparently that Sony has going for it.

@Thoughts R UsPhotography is a mix of art and science. Got to trust your feeling, but numbers too. There is no right or wrong choice, however underestimating facts such as the Canon RF50/1.2 has minute diminishing returns when compared to a Zeiss 55/1.8 seems more sentimental than practical. Again if I need an outstanding piece of glass with exceptional boke I will grab my Sigma 105/1.4 for a lot less and only if I really need to lug around a lot of weight. Sorry but I do not think that the 50/1.2 "masterpiece" with exceptional price and weight and average standard metrics performance holds up against it.It seems like Canon users are left with bragging about qualitative attributes as "colour science" and "look". It does not get more biased than this.

@Rex C"The Nikon 50mm is a significantly better lens than the 55mm Sony "...mmm... can you reference such statement? I am quite confident that they are quite similar in performance (as a fact on DXO the Zeiss has higher rating while the Nikon was also tested with a slight higher res sensor). Also, the Zeiss is substantially smaller and lighter. With Zeiss, you are paying Zeiss badge, so expected to be expensive.

@Rex CI guess you are right if you are pixel peeping (250%) at the the corners. I personally am more interested in the the sharpness close to the centre (for which Sony is better), transmission in low light (in which Sony is a tad better) size and weight (in which Sony is definitely better). In my opinion "significantly better" is "significantly subjective". Unless you are shooting landscapes with it (????) I do not see much relevance. Jim is unbiased but is not doing a lens review but an edge performance comparison which only part of the story.

Here's what matters most IMHO: right now we have 2 very special RF lenses from Canon: the 50 f1.2 and the 28-70 f2, that are unmatched by any other vendor at the moment.

We are soon to have the RF 85 f.1.2 and it too will most likely be amazing. For me personally the RF lens that I am most excited about is the upcoming RF 70-200 f2.8. I am sure the optical performance will be fantastic but it's small size is rather groundbreaking. I will be ordering that lens once it becomes available.

the 50/1.2 and 28-70/2 are porky unstabilized lenses, that are way overpriced, and there aren't any decent camera bodies to put them on.

if I had to choose between canikon milc platforms, i'd much rather be using the Nikon z-mount system... it's far more practical, for real-world use, as opposed to lugging big heavy unstabilized canon glass around, and the z6/z7 are better than their rf counterparts.

@MILC: that's your opinion and that's fine. The 50 f1.2 and 28-70 lenses are amazing performers; I've used them and they produce some magical images. I know a few pro's who use them and love them.

I will also add that to me, esp. that RF 50 f1.2 is like a paint brush; a real artist's tool. It's simply special.

One again your hyperbole is way off base. One can get great images from the Canon R system with these lenses, I don't find them to be hard to carry, and I've never needed IS on lenses of this focal lengths.

But again, I respect your opinion for you; please respect my opinion and the opinion of others who really value these RF lenses.

@Milcman: I don’t answer to you or have to prove myself to you like a high school student. I really don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t post images because that would just become a new battle ground for people like you.

You are like a political extremist but that schtick gets old very fast.

All of your facts are in opinions, except for point number 5. The lenses are fabulous, and again, people are using them and loving them, and some are using them to make money. But hey, have your opinion; it won't change what people buy and use.

BTW, I notice that you employ the same technique as political propagandists and seek to utterly demonize and tear down that which you do not like. You cannot admit any balanced opinion.

Guys... if you start reading a canon related article it is usually inevitable that you will run into @MILC man chiming in with the usual talk... Sony is king and canon is bad.

The two lenses in question, Sony doesn’t have, and probably never will. So we won’t know their taken implementing IS in them. Then of course he will talk about IBIS, but with the patents in from canon for that.... well we all know withint the next year or two we will have IBiS RF bodies. At which point any arguments on stabilization is moot.

The Sony FE 24-70 GM is north of 2k with is about 500 more than the canon version (talk about over priced 😛). What is a lens that is about one stop faster supposed to cost the same? Please... most Sony lenses are over priced.

@MILC man... so your defense of sony isn't usual like death and taxes?

Does the 50 GM and the 85 GM have OSS? Not that I can see. When glass gets too big it becomes an issue to incorporate IS. That is in fact one of the facts of life that always bit canon in the but regarding their comment that ILIS is better than IBIS... those big L primes don't have IS. And we see it again with the f1.2 primes.

As for your list there. Sure, for the small percentage of people considering the 400 lens and the A9 you are completely correct that you save 700 dollars. But relative to spending 20k... that is a 3.5 percent difference. I have no issues giving you that.

But how about thinking of the common consumer (which is my point in the first place). Replace the bodies with the A7III and the R, and remove the 400 off that list. You end up with 1k difference in canon's favor.

The savings as I stated is only in the body. The lenses you posted are 25% more expensive for the sony ones. It adds up.

My intention is not to bash sony as you seem to imply. I can fully appreciate what is good on their side. However, when it affects my pocket I have to have a good reason for it.

If I had to recommend a system to someone, assuming they don't flip flop between systems in the future and money is no object, I can't simply push them towards a system that I know will end up costing them potentially thousands more over the course of their photography path. If regular people balk at the thought of spending 1k on a lens does it make sense to encourage them to buy into a system where a lens generally costs more than the counter part??

So that list you provided, without the 12k 400 mm, and the regular bodies (A7III and R), would leave me with an additional 1k. That can equal a lens, or an additional 3 light godox setup with modifiers and all.

Those who need the advantages of sony can are willing to pay for it By all means. It will allow you to produce some awesome images, sharp and great DR

@lawny13 - "Does the 50 GM and the 85 GM have OSS? Not that I can see. When glass gets too big it becomes an issue to incorporate IS."

that's why god invented ibis... sony has it, canon doesn't, and claiming that canon will have it at some unknown point is a strawman argument.

trying to use canon patents a proof of impending ibis is also a fail, because canon is one of the biggest patent whores on the planet... canon is constantly filing patents for things that they will never use, in order to put the screws to companies that do need the i.p… from a moral standpoint, that behavior is pathetic.

for example, tamron 28-75/2.8 on sony for $880, vs. canon porky unstabilized 28-70/2 for $3000(!!) who wants to pay $3000 to lug that thing around, lol... you lose the f/2 advantage because it's unstabilized.

you can buy a *lot* more gear with that sony price savings of $2120, on just one lens.

The Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM is 2.5k and one stop slower. Not too far off 3k.

The patent use is supplemented with canon’s stated promise that the next R body is it have IBIS. Thus far they have delivered with the RF system the things they promised. Exotic glass, FW update for continuous eye AF and such. Until they don’t deliver on something I will simply not doubt they will.

Sure Sony has IBIS and canon does not. If IBIS is your priority no one is forcing you to buy canon get Sony or Nikon.

Think IBIS is important and that the 28-70f2 is porky and too bulky? Then wait for the holy trinity f2.8 IS lenses that will formally be announced in the next month or so.

All systems have their pros and cons. To you it is the lack of IBIS (currently). To me there are aspects of Sony that doesn’t jive with me.

1. Overall more expensive lenses over all. 2. Non transparency with it comes to FW updates (forced stopped down focus addition, star eater etc). 3. Limitations of the mount choice which trickle down into other design choices. Forced stopped down focus was introduced to “improve performance” when fast lenses were introduced... GM lenses for example suffer from pretty bad focus shift. Since I didn’t own GM lenses or lenses faster than F1.8, I found that FW “upgrade” crippled the AF system of my camera unless shooting in good light

You are right. DSLRs lenses are known for their focus shift issues, and micro adjustments that needed to be done.

I admit I was very worried that RF lenses would also exhibit focus shift, ESPECIALLY SINCE CANON’S TAKE IS TO FOCUS WIDE OPEN ALL THE TIME. I mean Sony is an expert too right? Surely canikon would run into the same issues and make us use forced stopped down focus right?

Wrong. I am happy to report that the RF 35 and the 24-105 do not exhibit such behaviors. The 24-105 is also parafocal, as in you can focus on a subject at lets say 35mm and zoom in and still be in focus. So no focus shift at zoom either.

Canon and Nikon entered the MILC FF market and they have been designing and building lenses far longer than Sony. One would imagine they just might have a leg up in that department, just as Sony does on the electronic and software side.

Sample images of the 28-70f2 and 50f1.2 also seem to be consistent with this. I had asked some owners about their experiences and no focus shift was experienced, at least not that they have noticed thus far.

The steeper the angles are on a lens, the more sensitive and more difficult it becomes to avoid or deal with focus shift. It so basic mathematics/physics. It is basically what this video post is all about. But as I said those who don’t care that their cameras are being limited of light for stopped down focus... well good for them.

But had Sony a camera that doesn’t force down focus, it’s AF system will do better at a narrow Fstop setting than their cameras with forced stopped down focus, that is just fact. They really should have allows use to turn it off, especially for lenses that don’t have the speed of the GMs, where focus shift is more pronounced (f1.4 aperture to f2 will focus shift more than f2.8 to f4 for example, due to more sensitivity raising from sharper angles).

And if it is an issue for some then they most definitely should take that into consideration. I have no issues admitting if I am wrong. So far reviews have pointed out that it seems that in general RF lenses do not exhibit focus shift.

From your link (this same reviewers) I looked up what they had to say on the other RF lenses. They literally say “focus shift is not a problem”. Considering what you get from the RF 35 it is still good value.

You can’t tell me that all Sony lense are perfect. The the very least I expect canon will try to do the same with all al glass in making sure there is no or negligible focus shift. Time will tell

Well Bryan Carnathan is from many years a point of reference in Canon world for his reviews (now he started also Sony), I trust him more than any other sources, he is balanced and poised, not fanatic and sensationalist like many others, his reviews are deep with tests and first hand use, he is part of the first wave of the old reviewers, nowadays if you don't scream and make sensational claims (Nikon is dead, Canon is doomed and so on) you are nothing but this is the mirror of our times (even here in DPreview the sensationalism is starting to be more and more evident and this is a real pity but it is obviously an editorial choice).

Yep... whatever happened to being informed? Somehow point out the flaws of one system always gets people on the defensive. As everyone knows all systems have their pros and cons.

A Ferrari is an awesome car (most would agree). But an every day vehicle it is not. I won't hand a trailer behind one either. This notion of having a vehicle that can park in a compact spot, haul 2 tones, and go from 0-100 in 3 sec is just silly.

Canon's current RF lineup leaves you wanting for a lot looking at sony. BUT, the same can be said the other way around. DPAF (except when it comes to tracking speed for now), that -6EV focus spec, that seemless adapting of EF lenses, canon's lens design prowess, and the canon touch interface to name a few.

Computationally related things, DR, noise control, IBIS (concerning primes) and the access to zeiss glass are what I see on the sony side as their coveted features looking at it from the canon side.

According to this and Fuji’s value angle theory, Sony FE is the most difficult mount to get the lenses right. But Sony does get a lot of lenses right. It says something about Sony By the way, smaller mount opening reduces the chance to get dust in. That’s an advantage:)

Right now Canon is the only mirrorless brand that when you power the camera down, a shutter curtain closes over the sensor to protect it for when you change lenses. I wish all camera companies would do it; it's so simply and inexpensive, yet can make so much of a difference.

@MILC: closed shutter blades are a very practical solution to the problem that mirrorless cameras have of getting dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

I don't know a single person who's had a problem with that; I know I haven't. It's a universally praised feature.

I know you feel a need to criticize all brands not named Sony, but why not admit that in this one feature, Canon has done something smart? I still say all camera companies should do the same.

And about what Sony can do in theory regarding max lens aperture: let's see them produce an AF lens with f1.2 aperture. Show me the actual product, and make sure it is from Sony and f1.2. Until that happens, then that theory means nothing.

@MILCman: first, I don't have to prove myself to you and quite frankly, it wouldn't matter to you anyway. You'd still criticize anything other than Sony.

The f1.2 e mount lenses on the market today are usually manual focus only, and are not that great in optical quality. That's the point. I can design all sorts of crazy lenses for any mount, but at what tradeoff in quality?

All we need to see is Sony produce a high quality f1.2 FE mount lens, with AF. When they do that then we can put this issue to rest.

@Thoughts R Us: this isn't about me, it's about you making claims that aren't backed up with any of your own actual photos.

mf/af has nothing to do with p.q., so that claim is false... the rf50/1.2 rear element is small enough to fit into e-mount, so there isn't any advantage to the rf mount... the rf50/1.2 vignetting is just as bad as the vignetting on the ef50/1.2, so where is this rf mount diameter advantage that you keep claiming?

afaik, canikon hasn't produced any milc lenses that have rear elements that are too big for e-mount... so this canon video is just clickbait hype.

@Thoughts R Usalthough this is is off topic, I like my sensor exposed when I change lenses, because I can visually inspect dust every time I switch lens. Since I had a mirrorless I had far less dust spot on my pictures because it easy to see and remove (short flange distance). This is just a simple fact.

Again, it’s isnt about a lens diameter or another making it impossible to produce good lenses, it is about design freedom and such. Physics is physics period.

Sony has produced some stellar lenses, but they haven’t exactly done anything that special. They pretty much replicated the FLs and zoom ranges already out there. But because they were all newer for the most part, a lot of them had some modern tech advantage. None of the Sony lenses exceed counter parts that have been released in the past decade by any real significant margin except when it comes to cost.

Now about the whole which mount is better discussion. Don’t take it from canon then.... have a read.

I wondered at first why is was that Sony SEL lenses could end so much more expensive than their own SAL glass, which was also sharp, and definitely good value. Sony glass is typically more expensive than the competition. Look at the holy zoom trinities. Lenses which are supposed to move in volume,

It is very very likely because of there “challenges” of designing for the mount. Sigma has also called it “challenging”, and stated it appeared the mount was designed for crop cameras.

Sony still of course produces some great cameras, with great software/features. So for those who are willing to pay for that lens design “challenge”/premium, by all means we aren’t exactly gonna get in your way.

This issue — lens mount potential — is a very long-game issue. It will play out over 20 years, and it will be just one of many, many technical issues that affect cameras over that time. It won't be decisive, but it will be somewhat influential.

The best way to see it is to look at what happened with Canon's EF mount. When introduced in 1987 it had several advantages over existing mounts, including greater optical potential. At the time, Canon had a good reputation as a lens maker, but they were not generally considered better than others, and maybe a notch behind Nikon, optically.

Over the next 30 years, after 75+ lens introductions, Canon had built a fairly widespread reputation for having the best overall lens lineup, at least by a modest margin. This is not by itself a decisive advantage, and other companies made plenty of great lenses in that time, but it was one factor in helping Canon succeed.

Greater optical potencial... 35mm negative film has about 16mp if you can get the best scanner today. Any lens from the 80's can give you great images on film. It wasn't the optical potencial that set canon appart. It was the technology. The AF with the new mount was the difference. Fully electronic lenses made the difference. Not the optical performance.

And today canon is on the other side of the fence. They don't have the technology.

I agree with this:"This issue — lens mount potential — is a very long-game issue. It will play out over 20 years, and it will be just one of many, many technical issues that affect cameras over that time. It won't be decisive, but it will be somewhat influential."

I also agree with this: "It wasn't the optical potencial that set canon appart. It was the technology. The AF with the new mount was the difference. Fully electronic lenses made the difference." But I would add that the optical potential did allow Canon to gain some advantage as well, but it wasn't the decisive factor.

I disagree that Canon doesn't have the technology. Watch how this plays out over time.

As I clearly said, optical performance was, and is, just one of many factors. I agree that AF performance was a bigger factor in Canon's success over the last 30 years, and especially in the first 10 years of the EOS system. Pricing was also a huge factor, and distribution, and logistics, and marketing, and 100 other things.

But the higher overall optical performance of the EF lenses compared to their FD predecessors, and the good reputation they achieved relative to competitors, also has helped Canon, especially in the 2nd and 3rd decade of the system. This is simply a fact; I had a front row seat to all this working for one of Canon's competitors.

Again, it's not decisive. If Canon has inferior AF, or inferior design, or inferior sensor quality, or inferior marketing, or a bad supply chain, or 100 other things, a small edge in optical quality won't win the game. But, it is one of many factors that does matter.

I should also note that optical potential is not just about performance; it's also about specification (max f-stop, size, weight, etc.) and, crucially, cost.

Over the past 30 years, Canon was often able to market lenses that were equal to, or even slightly better than, their Nikon equivalents but which were priced 10-15% less. That matters. Not over one lens, or one month. But over many lenses over many years. And it's part of what a mount with higher potential provides. It just makes everything a little bit easier. You can use that bit of freedom in different ways.

The price difference may also be explained by the bigger sales numbers. And canon isn't doing cheaper lenses. The 24-105 costs the same as the sony and EF versions.

And there's another factor. You buy 5 lenses and they last 10 years. Let's say on those 5 lenses you saved $1000 compared to the competition. In those 10 years you buy 3 or 4 bodies. If the bodies cost $500 more each, your savings just went out the window and you're now $500 to $1k behind.

You're really determined to keep your mind closed. This isn't about one lens, or one year, or one goal. It's about dozens of lenses over decades, and about multiple different goals: better performance for the same price; OR same performance for a lower price; OR same performance in smaller size; OR extreme specifications for a marketable price; OR ...

There is simply no doubt that bigger mounts with shorter flange distances provide a bigger design envelope. That's a fact of physics, attested to by everyone qualified to comment on it.

It's just one, relatively small factor in the total value equation of a camera system. It will not decide the game by itself, not even close. And potential is not reality; Canon may fail to take advantage of it. We buy real gear, not potential gear, so the proof will be in the pudding. But the potential is, in fact, there, and Canon has used it to some advantage once before. Those are facts.

And I can 100% guarantee you that Sony is aware that Canon and Nikon have a potential competitive advantage with their mounts. L-mount, too, although less so.

They are also 100% aware that it's a modest advantage that will not be decisive by itself.

In exactly the same way, Canon is 100% aware that Sony currently has a competitive advantage with its sensors and likely will for the forseeable future. But this, too, is not decisive by itself. It has an impact, for sure, but it has not driven Canon out of business. Quite the contrary.

Everybody has their mix of advantages and disadvantages compared to competitors. Nobody wins every battle. All these factors have their effects; none is the be-all, end-all.

As usual, the Sony counter part is in fact more expensive, at least here.

The RF 24-105 is €1100, and the FE version is €1350. And the RF was recently launched basically, so don’t be surprised that the usual canon approach applies and that price comes down. Bundled you get it for 1k.

Picky much? The prices you state puts it at 9% more. Sharper? Depends on the reviewer you go by. They are on par if you take copy variation into account. The FE 24-105 is not offered as a bundle, so you can get the RF cheaper by about 100 (euros) like that.

The 24-105 is newer, and canon typically releases lenses at a higher price and comes down quite a bit over time. For example the EF 70-200 mk3 came out in the same ball park as the FE version. Now it can be had for 500 euros cheaper.

And things are also dependent based on location, vender etc. HERE in the netherlands looking at just the major camera resellers the sony is 250 euros more expensive.

I invite you to draw up an excel sheet, and populate it with all the major focal lengths, and fill in the prices, nikon, canon, sony. You will see that the trend is that canon is cheaper, followed by nikon, then sony. That is just fact.

Just as it is fact that sony, nikon canon, the order flips regarding bodies. Also fact/the-trend.

Lets say that it is cheaper to make the RF 24-105 than the FE. Does that mean that canon will pass on the savings to us?

Lens performance in terms of sharpness is also not the only metric to measure quality. Coatings make a major difference in price as well.

And then there is the business side of things. It would not be a surprise if canon would price the first 4 lenses launched higher than they normally would because there is some risk releasing a new mount.

And then there are the FL and Zoom range considerations. A 24-105 of this close might be very "vanilla". So you get similarly size, weight, and performance from all the manufacturers. And its an f4, which isn't pushing lens mount boundaries.

And don't take my word for it. Canon stated that the new mount would give them more design freedom in terms of performance, size, weight, cost etc, which means a combination.

All in all, no offence, but I do find it particularly stupid how people start these very very bold claims when there are only 4... 4!! RF lenses out. 2 of which do not exist in any other mount.

The 24-105 f4 is a vanilla, easy lens design that everyone pretty much has. Even though the RF version is newer it came out right off the bat as cheaper than the sony version. Not significantly cheaper, but cheaper.

The 35 f1.8 has macro, 1 stop faster, and $250 cheaper than the sony version.

We ONLY have these two lenses to compare. I fully admit that I can be dead wrong, and canon decides to ask a premium above sony for their lenses. BUT THEY SAID, better, lighter, cheaper, and a combination of those. Thus far they have been doing everything they have said. So till they show otherwise I will take their word for it.

is there a reason canon can't just reuse the EF mount? the diameter seems more than capable. millions of exisiting EF users will not need to shift or replace their beloved lens collections. canon's dual pixel tech already seems capable. why not just replace the OVF with an EVF, replace the flapping mirror with a builtin ND filter and then call it a day?

There are adaptors that Canon makes that allow one to use the EF lenses on the RF mount cameras seamlessly.

But time marches on and companies feel a need to make progress, as they should. As noted above, companies need to come out with new products that are better in order to stay in business. Also as someone else noted, this is a situation that will play out over time, as measured in a few decades.

@mferencz changing lens mount and lens collection poses a huge risk of changing brands completely... which we already see happening. or is canon that confident that all their EF users will remain loyal?

Of course Canon can keep EF mount for mirrorless. However, in doing so, it cripples Canon from competing with its rivals.

Don't you think RF has improved on the contact pins and protocols besides the flange distance? Contrast focusing is another animal from phase detection. Even on sensor phase detection gains accuracy and respond time from rapid data exchange that the EF specification cannot keep up with.

Furthermore, as stated in the video, short flange distance has a lot of advantage over the long flange distance required by SLR mechanism.

You don't have to buy RF cameras nor RF lenses if you are totally satisfied with the cameras and lenses you have today but it is naive to think that the SLR is the ultimate solution.

@Fungshui everthing you said is a complete exaggeration. SLR being the ultimate solution was never mentioned. how did you come up with that? i mentioned the EF mount is more than capable. the dual pixel performance of the latest SL3/250D looks pretty impressive to me. far from being "crippled". it is naive to think that the RF mount is the only solution/option for Canon. like i said earlier, changing mounts and lens systems poses a huge risk of changing brands which we already see happening and EF lenses have significantly lost their value in the used market.

Can 1D compete with the outdated electronic design of EF mount? Maybe, but Canon explicitly mentioned it was one of the reasons of RF mount. So did they mention the short flange distance as well as the diameter.

Actually, Canon has stated the reasons again and again and made the choice. And you think that they made that choice without knowing the risk? You know better than them? What is the point of arguing the reasons as "complete exaggeration"?As I said, Canon promised to keep EF related product around. You don't have to buy RF mount related product if you are so hand on your EF gears.

sadly, that has more to do with the limitations of a separate phase detect af module vs an on-sensor af. not exactly the mount. also, its quite well-known that nikon's D5 has very impressive continuous tracking AF and has set the global standard. other things like eye-af / face-af requires on-sensor AF to work.

Sony compared in one of their slides the theoretical maximum F numbers of different mounts. Nikon F was 1.17, Canon 0.96. That's the resaon we didn't see F1.2 lenses for Nikon. But F1.4s ... they do pretty well, no? (Like the 55mm Otus).

Theoretical limits for E and L is 0.63, RF 0.62 and Z 0.58. So there will be a problem with an F0.8 lens with the Sony mount. But already F1.0 is no problem (is even doable on M-mount so many people seem to forget about - it's by far the smallest of all mirrorless and even worse as EF mount)

"Sony compared in one of their slides the theoretical maximum F numbers of different mounts. Nikon F was 1.17, Canon 0.96. That's the resaon we didn't see F1.2 lenses for Nikon. "Nikon have made f/1.2 lenses for F mount. The reason for not making them in AF versions was the thin dof which was too small for the AF systems.

I've seen plenty of negative comments on DPR forums about Canon sensors and the "crippled" video features of their cameras, but this is the first time that I've seen so much negativity about their lenses. The new lens mount is not for me, as I have a good selection of lenses now and a camera I like (even if I decide to switch to mirrorless in the future I'll probably adapt the lenses that I have) however the new lenses look amazing. Are they better than the EF versions or Nikkor or Sony lenses, thats debatable but the amount of Sony users in this forum desparaging them is I think a reflection of their own insecurity. Don"t see the same vitriol from Nikon or Fuji users.

It's always funny to watch marketing departments unmask themselves. Just like Konrad Adenauers famous phrase "why should I care about my stupid talk from yesterday". :-)

Canon reps have spent years telling customers that mirrorless has no real advantage over DSLRs as long as Canon has not been (really) active in this market segment and wanted to guard their DSLR sales. Shortly after, MILCs have big advantages in terms of lens design (what actually might be the case.

@milkod2001it's not JUST about lenses prices !What about the bodies ? even the a7iii "the entry-level" is way better than the EOS-R in all regards , AF , buffer , dual slot , IBIS .don't mention the a7r3 . a7s2 . a9 .what's your opinion now ?

I agree with @milkod2001. I own an a9 with some pretty decent glass (Batis 25, Zony 35 1.4, Zony 55 1.8, 85 GM). The cost of the Sony GM zoom lenses are ridiculously expensive (especially when compared with Canon EF counterparts). You have pay to play, I suppose.

That being said, as someone who also shoots Canon (5D3 and a lot of L glass), the new Canon mirrorless system just doesn’t appeal to me at all. Yes, the new RF lenses have exceptional specs (f1.2 lenses have a really special look that I haven’t seen duplicated), but the weight penalty is too much to overcome for me personally. I shoot semi-professionally and less weight is preferred when image quality from Sony lenses is “good enough.”

@wassim al malakSony sets standards with AF, IBIS etc,etc. The rest with follow up and will eventually catch up within 2 years. Sony might still have edge if it won't stop innovating but Canon will always have edge in lenses as there Canon has much more experience.

The true reason for the shorter flange distance is to be able to adapt DSLR lenses for smooth adoption of mirrorless cameras. System designs must support the way of developing the camera business / ecosystem. Advantages of new lens mounts:- upgrade of body / lens connectivity to allow more functionality in new lenses- not only sell new camera bodies, but also sell a lot of new lensesRenewing sales of lenses is very good to counter declining volumes for cameras.

Could be optical advantages, but that's not the primary goal. The primary goal is for camera makers to make profits, out of selling you more things that actually end-up taking the same photographs. Don't be fooled...

To be honest/fair, it works both ways. Makers get more money, we get better quality. But many, me included, just can't afford to abandon our older tech and buy into the new tech, which is not THAT much better.

Of course, the primary goal is to make money. But by doing away with the large flange distance required for an SLR, lens design is less complicated and thus cheaper. So I think the primary reason for a shorter flange distance is that it's easier to design lenses. The fact that it also enables backward compatibility is a bonus. (although I suppose Canon has put backward compatibility high on the list of requirements).This leaves one question: why not even shorter like 15 or 10mm?

Amazing places like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and maybe few trendy places in Africa... China is more nomenklatura led capitalism but at least food for everybody is not a problem like it used to be before the 1980’ when they were applying the letter of Marx.

The Otus 55 manages a flatter field wide open than the RF 50, with only 1/3 of a stop between them. On the basis of DxOMark data, the Otus is not distinguishable from perfectly flat wide open, and they weigh the same. The RF still has problems in the corners.

I would hope the super expensive lens is better than the much cheaper canon. Doesn't make the video wrong though as Zeiss just threw money at the lens (their own words were uncompromising) to get there. There are advantages to shorter flange distances but generally more so for shorter focal lengths like 30mm.

Seriously you're going to say Canon doesn't deliver excellent lenses? You do know why they're number 1 despite having a (by all accounts on this site) inferior set of camera's right? You can rant about sensors and features all day long (its mostly true) but Sony brought out the E mount almost 10 years ago and have only really started delivering in the last 3 years. The amount of Canon lenses I saw attached to A7's in the early days was quite astounding so clearly other Sony users didn't share your thoughts.

Don't put word in my mouth. I own Canon lenses, I am in no way knocking Canon lenses. I am knocking Canon's assertion that e-mount is too small or too hard to develop lenses for - when Sony and other manufacturers HAVE been producing excellent lenses for e-mount already.

Well its easy to see how I jumped to that conclusion. The saying is usually used with reference to someone who is all talk and doesn't deliver. I actually don't think this is any attempt to undermine Sony anyway and Canon is probably referring to their own EF mount. The short back focus (which Sony has) is valid mostly for wider angle lenses but the larger rear element is mostly fluff as the lenses that benefit would not be fast enough (like 0.75) to need it. It can help with telecentricity though (again Sony has countered that with thinner sensor covers) so yes nothing to stop Sony making great lenses.

This is the original article (German) and why and how Fujifilm come to the 'Value Angle' and why Sony E-Mount is great for APS-C, really bad for Full Frame and how Canon and Nikon have the best mount for Full Frame.

Remember that Sigma, Canon, Nikon and Fujifilm all agree on the fact that good FF lens design for the Sony E-mount is very difficult to achieve.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying Sony doesn't make good lenses, but it does give a good explanation of why Sony E-mount is a bad choice for Full Frame and how it is extremely difficult to design good lenses for this mount. Possibly e-mount was even only designed to be used with APS-C.

This is also the reason why most of Sony E-mount lenses come with a built in flangerange adapter and why these lenses are built upon old DSLR designs.

@DuncanM - You're plain wrong about almost all you wrote. When I down trough your comment history and date of joining to DPR with this nickname, obviously another anti Sony damage control troll like TRU and many more we had in the past. It's pathetic...

Well, ok so i is more difficult to design lenses on the sony mount.However Sony manages to design them and doing a great job at it. More praise to Sony.

I am not a Sony user, but aside of some 12mm F1.4 lens or something that might actually require every mm of that "larger diameter", in reality Sony lenses perform as good as the new RF lenses while priced competitive. Ok, Sony needs to hire 2 more lens designers to the job compared to Canon, while Canon has 2 more marketing guys who make this type of video ... :)

Wow - I wouldn't have thought that this lens is that mediocre, after having seen lots of sample images of the 28-70/2 (which admittedly is a different beast). For the huge opening, you pay a penalty over the entire aperture range.

OpticalLimits test of the 50mm RF seemed to be pretty positive, so I suppose it's up to personal preference on which instance's results to give most weight. Unfortunately I think LensRentals hasn't yet tested this which is too bad, as their results would be interesting to see.

@ Mika Y.Thanks for pointing out that test. Sometimes it's confusing how different OpticalLimits and DxO tests are, but my personal experience at infinity usually is more in line with the DxO results. For example, I feel that the Sony FE 16-35/2.8 is a great lens while OpticalLimits wasn't that impressed.

The LensRentals measurements, while methodologically flawless, are not that relevant to me, because they, with little exceptions, always test wide open. While I, due to the necessity of DoF while keeping diffraction low, mostly always take pictures at 5.6 or 8

@Anulu.. your link to Dxomark does not take into consideration the resolution of the camera that the rf50 was tested on. In this case it was on a 30mpx (similar to 5dIV) sensor and had a sharpness of 22.

The others are all on cameras of above 40mpx resolution, all the way up to the 5dsr at 51mpx.

For example..take the extremely sharp Zeiss 135f2 on a Canon 5dsr, it has a score of 41 sharpness..put it on a 5dIV it drops down to 24.

When Canon release their 1st "pro" R camera (expected to be around 65mpx)..I would not be surprised if the rf50 jumps to around a score of 45 sharpness.

All that being said, I have taken dxomark with a grain of salt for several years. Often their scores are way off compared to others that do similar testing.

@cbphoto123 The link takes it into consideration: If you, for example, look at the result of the Sony FE 55/1.8, you'll find that it utilizes almost the full camera resolution, where the RF 50/1.2 is nowhere near. Yes, this is only an approximate calculation, as sensors have different designs and are only comparable within limits, but the margin is huge: Sony 95% vs. Canon 74%

@arcimboldo.. U did a whataboutism, but did not actually address what I wrote. If according to dxomark the Zeiss 135f2 is 41 sharpness on a 5dsr and 24 on a 5dIV.. certainly that does not make the Zeiss lens "meh". With the RF50 matched with a 50mpx sensor.. it would more than likely be around 38-40 sharpness at dxomark. Is that still "meh" in your world?

@cbphoto123I don't see any whataboutism. As the combined MTF of an imaging system is the product of the individual MTFs, the closest thing to compare the DxoMark results of two combinations of camera and lens with each other is to look how much of the MPs of the camera is left in the combos. And 95% is much better than 74%. It's an entirely different matter if in your experience the DxoMark "MPs" reflect reality.

@Strolic FurlanMaybe so, but as a landscape photographer I'm first and foremost interested in getting the whole picture sharp. Besides the MTF I'm interested in low CA, but not so much usually in Bokeh. Obviously, for me the RF 50/1.2 wouldn't make sense, but my point wasn't so much that the lens may be 'bad' (it certainly isn't) but that I don't see anything with the current Canon RF lenses offering that makes me think "Wow, that mount makes a difference". Believe me: If I would see that, I would consider changing system, I'm not married to Sony ;)

Also, in general I'm not interested in the 'rendering' of a lens if that's what you're driving at - I want a great MTF. If I want a look that's an artistic decision that I'll achieve in post.

@Arcimboldo.. we going a bit in circles here. All the cameras/lens combinations shown, only the rf50 is on a 30mpx sensor..all the rest are 42-51mpx.

Dxomark does their tests from the sensor that the lens is paired with. IF the rf50 was on a sensor of a higher/equal resolution, it more than likely would come in at 1st or 2nd of all the 50's they tested.If all the other lenses were tested on a 30mpx sensor... the rf 50 would also come up in the 1st or 2nd position.

Case in point, the link you shared to dxomark is misleading.Also I believe dxomark tests their lenses from wide open to its smallest aperture. Then takes the average. This leads to faster lenses getting "lower" scores for sharpness.

I have found Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals to have much more accurate results.

@cbphoto123: I didn't share a link, you may mix me up with the OP. In any case, I didn't look at the DxoMark "MPs" but at the sharpness profiles in the measurements. That's where I got my impression from: That the user pays a penalty for the huge opening of the lens even when stopping it down.

PS Thanks for the comparison link. Indeed, it looks as if the Canon performs nearly on the level of the OTUS. At the same time, the Sony FE 55/1.8 is mostly always above 80%. Confusing: Without ever having used one, I had the impression that the OTUSes are the best lenses ever produced. On the other hand, I heard that the OTUSes perform better on Nikon than on Canon cameras. But, as Strolic rightly pointed out, acutance is not everything (just for me, photographing landscapes).

@Arcimboldo... sorry about that. I see now that the OP...@Anulu is long gone. Having just taken a look at his posting history.. the theme seems to be Sony does everything better than everyone else.So his "scientific analysis" of the RF50 being "meh" should really be of no surprise. Quite common here at DPR.

Time will tell if this is the right strategy for Canon. CA is a problem for fast lenses.

Fast lenses give more light and shallower DOF, but is a product from the past and will not be as popular in the future.

Advances in sensor technology will continue and software processing is improving.

The next generation of photographers will process all their images in real time or later. The only concern is to take a sharp picture across the frame. Bokeh mode will be a swipe to activate plus many other filters.

I don't think we need faster lenses because that is not a growing market. It's literally dieing. Smaller lenses is what people want, not because we are too weak to carry gear, but because society sees big stuff as intimidating. Shooting with big cameras and lenses makes you stand out.

In the future it be like walking down the street with a ghetto blaster on your shoulder.

Camera companies should focus on smaller lenses and cameras as well as sensor tech.

Many people already have gone to smartphones. Everywhere I go, I'm either the only one using a dedicated camera or out numbered 1 to 20 smart phones. When Canon finally has a full lineup of lenses for RF, smartphones will have closed the gap even further.

Sensor tech still has along way to go for smartphones, until then then, people will still buy dedicated cameras for IQ.

@trungtranYep, I covered an event in a church 3 weeks ago, and we only were 3 guys using "big cameras", and one "cameraguy"...

Everybody else was using smartphones.

But frankly, I never would like what you are searching for : an everything in focus lens is what many are not looking for. It may be usefull and practical to put OOF bokeh here and there in postproduction, but in the meantime that lens will be lifeless, and the scene rendering will be the same until you tweak the bokeh filter on each shooting session...Another thing to let the thing falsely called AI doing the job ? so another lifeless and unhuman picture set to look for ? sorry, I'll pass on this one, thank you.

So instead of a large front element, you have a large rear element. But is any weight actually shed? It's seemed to me these RF lenses are rather large and heavy.

Also, as it's not stated which surfaces would be nano coated, will the obsessive wiping brigade be able to just wipe this off? From what they're showing, this is very similar to lotus effect nano coatings, and those definitely get rubbed off.

The new L’s are somewhat large and heavy and the best there is. If you were to create an EF equivalent of the RF50, it would be so huge and so heavy and expensive it would be a stupid thing to make. You can either have same IQ in a very small and light package or optically perfect in the same size.

The EF is reaaaly horrobile at what? Sharpness? I can agree but I will choose anytime this lens (which I own) for its "bokeh" and pop over the flat and boring Sigma 50 Art (which I owned twice), luckly personal taste still matters in this world of MTF charts, you can obviously disagree with me, nema problema.

Cool, but this is theoretical. Having numerous lenses top the DXOMark lens charts would take it out of the realm of theoretical and put it into the realm of testable. Yet that is not the case at the moment. In fact it appears that of the five lenses with top scores, the top three are (Sigma and Zeiss) DSLR lenses, and the next two are Sony mirrorless lenses. To round out the top 10, the next 4 (6-9) are (Zeiss and Sigma) DSLR lenses, followed by a Sony mirrorless lens.

DXO may be "testable" but it's still pretty theoretical, and kind of pseudo scientific itself.

The bottom line is this: these days all of these lenses are amazing and one can get great results with any of them.

The newer, larger mounts do offer some flexibility in design and that's what this really is all about. We do have those new RF lenses, the 50 and 28-70, that are spectacular. We have that new Rf 70-200 that will be an amazing size for that type of lens.

DXO is not credible for me. They test different lenses on different sensors so the results are not comparable. They said the Canon 70-200 IS is better than version 2 when every other review out there said otherwise. They score lens A higher than lens B because lens B has a minimum aperture of F22 vs F32 for lens A.

DxO will be the go-to reference for everyone with an interest in denying the benefits of the larger mounts.

Why? Because their scoring system is very heavily weighted towards highest achieved center sharpness. That's exactly where more compromised lenses have the least problems. Most other reviewers give more weigh to image quality at the edges of the frame. This is a big reason why there is often such a discrepancy between what DxO says and what so many other lens review sites say.

Now, center sharpness may indeed be more important. Everyone has to judge that for themselves. I personally think most reviewers do in fact give too much weight to edge sharpness; it's impressive from an engineering standpoint but it rarely matters to my photographs.

But it's important to be aware of what is being tested and scored, and to judge for yourself whether that aligns with your own needs and wants.

These kind of pseudo science-marketing again. Today's lenses from many manufacturer are sharp enough, how many percentage the corner sharper of RF to EF/Z/FE are? 5% 10%? doesn't matter to us but probably yes to pixel peepers lol. What we want is sharp lenses but cheaper, smaller, lighter, and it seems manufactures chase the opposite.

With a 40+ mp sensor you don't need to pixel peep to see that some lenses that were fine with 24mp are getting soft in the corners.

I agree on one thing: cheap, sharp, light. But it's not compatible with profits. Imagine if the f3.5-5.6 kit lens was as sharp as the f4 zoom or even f2.8. Most people wouldn't go for the f2.8 unless they need the DoF or exposure advantage. One might think the whole business model would fall apart. Then again it could be high quality at decent price that could save the consumer market...

well, that's a strength of the new mounts as well, new lenses that weren't designed at a time when the best sensors topped at 20-22mp. And obviously we already have excellent lenses such as the Sigma Art series that can handle 50mp, but they're quite heavy and only kind of cheap.I hope Canon will make RF lenses like the 24/28/35 IS USM series, those were great at their price points.

I totally agree, especially AF...I still have a Sony Nex system, including the feted A6000 which is supposed to have good continuous AF. It hasn't. It has a fabulous sensor and its other fault is dire battery life. I've a big 1Dx Canon system and Olympus OMD. Both have pretty good AF. The Sony is extremely good at S-AF but C-af, no.

Well compared to an Olympus OMD-EM1.2 etc it's pretty hopeless. What's the point of having AF-C with several frames a second when most of the shots aren't in sharp focus..The writeups say it's good. It's not. I've a NEX-7 as well. That's beyond hopeless in AF-C though its S-AF is stellar.

At first, I thought Canon was trying to say how their RF mount is better than E/FE, Z, or L... and the video makes no sense that way because L is very comparable, E/FE is shorter, and Z is both shorter and wider. For that matter, wider rear elements tend to mean more oblique rays that sensors, especially non-BSI ones behind thick cover glass, don't catch -- and Canon doesn't do BSI and has a thicker sensor stack than Nikon. In summary, this is essentially an ad for Nikon Z!

Ah, but then I got it.

Canon is explaining why they are moving from EF/EF-S to RF. This is almost an announcement of the impending termination of EF/EF-S....

s1oth1ovechunk: Rays come from all parts of the exit pupil to all areas of the sensor. That means rays might have to cross from the far side of the rear element to the edge of the sensor. It depends on the lens design, but I think fast lenses will tend to have this issue.

I think EF will be around a while, they are still selling north of 3M EF cameras a year and there's a squillion people with one and happy with it, so won't be changing to RF anytime soon. They could leave the EF lens market to the 3rd parties, but that would seem financially poor judgement.

s1oth1ovechunk: I assume you're referring to where rays come from. I'm think mostly is terms of correlations I've seen among my 200+ lenses... but this definitely is something that varies wildly. It all depends on where the exit pupil is, right?

This and Nikons Z mount videos and of all companies even what Fuji put out recently really makes it look bad for Sony’s small mount. Of course Sony has a 5 year lead in FF mirrorless lens production. So for now they are ok but down the road when Nikon and Canon mirrorless lens lineup is fully fleshed out it could be bad. I am even wondering if Fuji is looking at a FF camera.

By "what Fuji put out recently", are you talking about that chart? Interestingly, if we go by that, the Sony E-mount blows away the Fuji X-mount. Think about it. If just a wider area makes lenses sharper, then Sony should have the best APS-C glass there is, because their mount can fit a full-frame sensor, and Fuji's mount can't. Yet we don't see that, do we? It mainly comes down to lens design, doesn't it?

Nikon left the F mount for a reason. If the small F Mount was as good as the Z mount they could have sold the Z6 Z7 and had a huge line of lenses on day one. But they chose to go with a new mount and reap the rewards of a wider mount with a shallow flange distance. Canon moved to a wider mount in the late 80’s I think. Their new mount is more shallow than their DSLR Mount. Neither company poured countless millions in designing these new mounts just for fun. they have a purpose and the new lenses are showing the benefits already

Fujifilm can own 90% of the Full Frame Plus / MF market,While on the other hand we already know at least 90% of the Full Frame market will go to Canon, Nikon and Sony...

So what is there to be left for Fujifilm? Competing against its own APS-C sized X-Series... No they will not do that. Getting a thin slice from the FF market and a big bite into the MF market that is Fujifilm's strategy.

Any real advantage of the wide lens mounts will really only show up on the truly exotic lenses. Those are lenses the average consumer will never buy, so the advantage to the average consumer is almost non-existant. The jostling for position by the manufacturers is all kind of silly, at least to me, anyway.

As a side note: Thom Hogan has an interesting article entitled "Is disinformation a problem?" In the article he pokes at DXO testing of lenses. It's an interesting read.

At 1:40min, the real truth is shown, but not told. The back lens element INCREASED in diameter (and geometric complexity). In other words, the new lenses for a wider mount with a shorter flange distance MUST be more expensive. Such mounts require more corrections happening in a shorter space, therefore more glass surface(s) overall, not less. And the cost of good quality optical glass grows not in a linear fashion, but *exponentially.*

Say, to cover a 45mm diameter with optical glass, the 529π surface area is needed, while 54mm wide diameter requires the 729π surface area. That is nearly 40% more optical glass claimed, with more mass added too.

To compensate the increase, the manufacturers will try to find ways to "overcome issues" (cheat on materials, rely heavily on software for necessary optical corrections, etc.), but one thing is certain: the age of compact FF lenses is GONE.

cdembrey & chaos, you skimmed through the reading. I wrote about a short flange, and MORE corrections required in a narrower space via the wider elements and more corrective surfaces. Even if a 54mm wide *long flange* mount requires wide back elements, shot flange mount of the same opening requires *even wider* elements, more expensive ones with more complex geometry.

He could be wrong about inner diameter of EF mount, but right about size of glass elements. With shorter flange, the rear element must be larger, even with same inner mount diameter, and so with others

s1oth1ovechunk, real-world demands are exacting. Larger surface overall means more glass, more mass, more cost. The only mirrorless system where this short flange nightmare works to the benefit of the manufacturer AND the user is the M43. Because: the (1) elements can be very thin (better for light passage); (2) required surface is smaller, which means less cost; (3) mass of all elements smaller, which is better for the AF, (4) better & more expensive grade glass used at a much lower cost, which increases the optical performance. In other words, kick-ass optics at a fraction of the cost of the comparable FF optics (which cannot be made comparable anyway).

@Rex C: to me it seems that people are talking about AI as it were a magic wand. In most cases, it's actually just a piece of software. To be an AI it should actually learn something, and then it would be really fun to review cameras, as the camera from one year ago would be improved by now.

Then comes the question, if the AI relies on a database of millions of pictures to improve yours, is it really still yours? does it even matter to take a picture?

"Of the various 50-55mm F1. 8 mirrorless FF lenses on the market, Jim Kasson and this site said the Nikon 50mm was the performance/price leader"

The Nikon 50/1.8 Z is an excellent lens, but it also has 12 elements, 2 aspherics and 2 low dispersion glasses. 'Over-engineer' a lens to this level with a relatively modest aperture and you will achieve such a result. It has nothing to do with the mount.

The Sony 55/1.8 in comparison is a 7 element lens with no ED glass, which is why it has worse CA. The Nikon lens is essentially as complex as Sony's 50/1.4 which is equally excellent.

For the moment Sony managed to have all the lenses out there, with their current mount, and performance wise are amazing, price-wise are competitive. And the only RF lenses canon came up with are (while impressive) huge and incredible expensive. Yes, undoubtedly they have a theoretical advantage ... but why would one care?

Criticizing a corporation is not hate. The majority of mirrorless users are former Canon users, hence the interest. I don't hate Canon, I dislike pretty much all multi-national corporations as they are greedy, anti-humanity pos. I reserve hate for big things like governments, bureaucracies, bureaucrats, bankers, war and injustice which typically is brought about by those listed.

EF lenses are pretty good. I've got some red banded lenses here which prove it (L lenses). The shorter distance/back focus offers help to really fast wide angle lenses (<40mm, <f2). Other than that just a bunch of noise to annoy Sony. Nikon's F mount is no bigger than Sony's E Mount. Nikon did pretty well on everything down to f1.4. One might be able to say Canon EF held an advantage under f1.8 over Nikon F on the borders and corners.

Even at wide angle, the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 blew all of Canon's 16-35mm, 17-40mm type lenses out of the water when it appeared in 2007.

Vague soothing video for Canon stalwarts created by the marketing department. Lull the sheep to sleep while we wait for a decent Canon body. I celebrated the Canon EOS R with its touch bar, 1.8x video crop factor and rolling shutter by buying my first Nikon camera, a Z6. Great camera, btw. Exposure to the non-gelded Z6 has prompted me to replace a 5D Mark III with a Nikon D4 for sports adding a Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E FL.

"One might be able to say Canon EF held an advantage under f1.8 over Nikon F on the borders and corners."

The best f/1.4 AF glass is Sigma's Art lineup, and the same optical designs have been used for the Canon EF and Nikon F mounts... These fine lenses also exist for Sony's E mount...

However, one should not continue investing today in Canon EF or Nikon F body and lenses, it's time to start moving to the mirrorless mounts... One example to justify that is the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, an amazing lens...

I am a Sony user and this kind of video makes me wonder what is the real impact of Sony's E mount being smaller... Until now Sony has proved to be able to design extremely good optics, like the new 135mm f/1.8 that it just the absolute best in its category... Wide angle lenses like the 12-24 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8 (I have this one) are absolutely fantastic too... What Sony does not have is a 50mm f/1.2, but maybe it's just by choice... In a similar category, my Sigma 40mm f/1.4 (DSLR design) with E mount is maybe the sharpest lens of all (wide open)... Who could clarify in which cases the lens design starts to be impacted by the mount diameter?

If I were you I'd sell everything Sony while there is still time, but that is just my opinion. Personally I'm eager to see Sony's response to the new X-Box as the PlayStation is Sony's true bread and butter, imaging is minuscule compared the the what the PS brings in for the corp.

@IDM - as UncoyDP posted above, the advantage is more of a theoretical one, and especially applicable to very fast and wide optics.

Say probably a 24mm/1.2 would be easier to create (meaning a bit cheaper or better performance in the same size/cost) or a 28-70mm F2, 12/F2, 12-24/2.8 etc :) ... note the relative lack of ultra wide fast glass in Sony's lineup - not that it can't be done, but it will probably get pretty large and expensive.Now, would one prefer the Sony's 24/1.4 for 1400$, the Sigma art for 850$ or a potential Canon 24/1.2 probably better optically but two times as heavy and for some 2999$ ... well... it up to the future to see what will happen, and everyone to decide.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.